Spring Break
This is my Hijab; this is my choice
Abstract:
About two months ago I made one of the biggest decisions of my life when I chose to start wearing the hijab (head scarf). I wear it as a symbol of who I am and what I believe, even if it means standing out from the crowd.
I made this decision knowing fully that I live in a society that largely fails to understand the concept of hijab and its meaning to the millions of Muslim women who observe it....
- Displaying 1 - 50 of 403
- Next 50 Comments
"Honor Killing" is Absolutely Islamic!
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:45 AM MST
I'd also like to point out how bigotted, ignorant and intolerant it is of Sarah to condemn the spiritual commitment of Muslims who "employ the action force" regarding hijab fatwas.
By what authority does Sarah excommunicate (takfir) her devout jihadist brethren-- as "not in line with Islamic teachings"-- when they practice "honor killing" to enforce hijab fatwas?
Again, the prerogative to issue apostacy fatwas is granted only to her dead false prophet, or authoritative representatives of your mythical Ummah. Which one is Sarah invoking?
Have her MSA handlers of the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood approved Sarah's anti-jihadist fatwa?
By what authority does Sarah excommunicate (takfir) her devout jihadist brethren-- as "not in line with Islamic teachings"-- when they practice "honor killing" to enforce hijab fatwas?
Again, the prerogative to issue apostacy fatwas is granted only to her dead false prophet, or authoritative representatives of your mythical Ummah. Which one is Sarah invoking?
Have her MSA handlers of the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood approved Sarah's anti-jihadist fatwa?
*Jordanian penal code, Article 340*
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:56 AM MST
And before her MSA apologists pull out their canned answer (that the Koran doesn't command honor killings), let's review the evidence.
In the showcase "moderate" state of Jordan, penal code, Article 340 (*hyperlinked above*) states: "(a) He who discovers his wife, or one of his maharim [female relatives of such a degree of consanguinity as precludes marriage], while committing adultery with another man and kills, wounds, or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty; (b) He who discovers his wife, or one of his sisters or female relatives, with another in an illegitimate bed, and kills, wounds, or injures [one or both of them] benefits from a reduction of penalty."
The Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF) issued a fatwa that declared honor-killings are seen as favorable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the IAF's Ifta committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honor killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, "negates the values of virility advocated by Islam." Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on "the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honor, property, and blood." Muhammad 'Uwayda, dean of Zarqa University's Shari'a College and a member of the lower house, stated that while the Shari'a does prohibit individuals from taking the law into their own hands, "cases where a man catches his wife committing adultery are the exception." The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that "canceling Article 340 would contradict the Shari'a."
Thus, we see the showcase "moderate" state of Jordan has declared that honor-killings are part of Islamic dogma.
I do not intend to go into the range of legal doctrines circumscribing Muslim immorality laws. Suffice it to say, Westerners are well aware of the campaign to hide these (and other) shameful aspects of your religion of mysogyny.
In point of fact, it is Sarah's co-religionists (not Americans) who remain unaware of her moderate/rejectionist views forbidding "the action of force"-- as evidenced by the ubiquity of this practice in Muslim cultures globally.
Muslims like Sarah can chew the carpet and mutter the Koran until they're blue in the face, hoping to discern truths from the illiterate, psychotic babblings of a dead false prophet. But don't expect Westerners to waste our breath convincing her co-religionists.
Sarah needs to refute her jihadist brethren (who typically don't read the Collegian)-- which shouldn't be difficult in light of her insistence that her hijab makes her "Free" and "the action of force" is "not in line with Islamic teachings."
But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadist doctrines-- and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad or the subjugation of women on Islamic grounds.
Islam's sharia law system is ossified and unchangeable. The values put forward and acted upon by the culture of "honor killings" are mandated by the Koran and praised in the hadiths, Sira, and by hundreds of thousands of scholars and billions of Muslim voices that have exhorted death for immorality over the ages. Indeed, public execution of women for immorality (adultery, etc.) is commanded-- and widely practiced in the Muslim world (in particular, Sarah's Afghan homeland).
Instead of smugly lecturing Westerners, Sarah should go to Gaza-- or Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Paris banlieue, etc., ad nauseum-- and try challenging her co-religionists about how honor killings misinterpret the Koran. Any guesses how long Sarah's apostacy would be tolerated?
In the showcase "moderate" state of Jordan, penal code, Article 340 (*hyperlinked above*) states: "(a) He who discovers his wife, or one of his maharim [female relatives of such a degree of consanguinity as precludes marriage], while committing adultery with another man and kills, wounds, or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty; (b) He who discovers his wife, or one of his sisters or female relatives, with another in an illegitimate bed, and kills, wounds, or injures [one or both of them] benefits from a reduction of penalty."
The Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF) issued a fatwa that declared honor-killings are seen as favorable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the IAF's Ifta committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honor killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, "negates the values of virility advocated by Islam." Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on "the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honor, property, and blood." Muhammad 'Uwayda, dean of Zarqa University's Shari'a College and a member of the lower house, stated that while the Shari'a does prohibit individuals from taking the law into their own hands, "cases where a man catches his wife committing adultery are the exception." The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that "canceling Article 340 would contradict the Shari'a."
Thus, we see the showcase "moderate" state of Jordan has declared that honor-killings are part of Islamic dogma.
I do not intend to go into the range of legal doctrines circumscribing Muslim immorality laws. Suffice it to say, Westerners are well aware of the campaign to hide these (and other) shameful aspects of your religion of mysogyny.
In point of fact, it is Sarah's co-religionists (not Americans) who remain unaware of her moderate/rejectionist views forbidding "the action of force"-- as evidenced by the ubiquity of this practice in Muslim cultures globally.
Muslims like Sarah can chew the carpet and mutter the Koran until they're blue in the face, hoping to discern truths from the illiterate, psychotic babblings of a dead false prophet. But don't expect Westerners to waste our breath convincing her co-religionists.
Sarah needs to refute her jihadist brethren (who typically don't read the Collegian)-- which shouldn't be difficult in light of her insistence that her hijab makes her "Free" and "the action of force" is "not in line with Islamic teachings."
But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadist doctrines-- and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad or the subjugation of women on Islamic grounds.
Islam's sharia law system is ossified and unchangeable. The values put forward and acted upon by the culture of "honor killings" are mandated by the Koran and praised in the hadiths, Sira, and by hundreds of thousands of scholars and billions of Muslim voices that have exhorted death for immorality over the ages. Indeed, public execution of women for immorality (adultery, etc.) is commanded-- and widely practiced in the Muslim world (in particular, Sarah's Afghan homeland).
Instead of smugly lecturing Westerners, Sarah should go to Gaza-- or Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Paris banlieue, etc., ad nauseum-- and try challenging her co-religionists about how honor killings misinterpret the Koran. Any guesses how long Sarah's apostacy would be tolerated?
Thats for me to know and you to never find out
posted 5/09/08 @ 12:26 PM MST
Originally posted byMSA Wahabbi-lobby dossier
In the interest of full disclosure, readers should be made aware that Sarah is listed as an executive member of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at Colorado State.
Q: Have Sarah's handlers in the Wahabbist MSA approved the content of this propanganda, masquerading as opinion?
A: The prerogative to issue fatwas regarding hijab is granted only to Sarah's dead false prophet, or authoritative representatives of her mythical Ummah. Which one is this slave of Allah invoking? Or is she free to interpret Islam herself?
Well first, learn to read, and then to spell,
its Sahar not "Sarah".
And to correct you, Sahar Babak is the secretary of the Muslim Student Association at CSU, so more than just an executive member, get your info right.
To continue, its nice that you think you answered your own question, but you and I both know you just made up crap. The respective members of MSA do no deserve your vile remarks. Is is obvious that it is Sahar alone who wrote this wonderful piece as it is a expression of her experience.
Finally, whether you chose to believe of Prophet Muhammad of not, its your choice, I could wipe away your arguments in a minute with the truth, but thats still not enough for an air-filled brain to comprehend. Its your loss.
"made up crap" = Qu'ran
posted 5/09/08 @ 12:49 PM MST
Originally posted byThanks, but Americans have no use for Farsi lessons. It's a dying language and culture. She's just Sarah to me.MSA Wahabbi-lobby dossier
Taqiya-vendor boasts: "I could wipe away your arguments in a minute with the truth"
Thanks for acknowledging that she's an elected officer of the MSA and, therefore, a Wahabbi-lobby propaganda mouthpiece for the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That's important for readers to know, don't you agree? Do MSA folks need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act yet?
As for "made up crap", readers will note I've included hyperlinks as source references. Conversely, I'm still waiting to know what reliable source Sarah is citing and whether her MSA handlers approved of her message. Do devout Muslim permit just any slave of Allah to interpret Islam now?
If you could wipe away the evidence in a minute, then you'd have done so. Your boasting is empty.
"made up crap" = Qu'ran
posted 5/28/08 @ 8:22 AM MST
Originally posted bytick-tock-tick-tock... all mouth... no action...MSA Wahabbi-lobby dossier
Taqiya-vendor boasts: "I could wipe away your arguments in a minute with the truth"
While readers wait, feel free to click on the hyperlink above for the evidence Islam can't "wipe away." LMAO!
Peace Love
posted 6/11/08 @ 7:06 PM MST
Would you be willing to participate in a "WEAR YOUR HIJAB IF YOU SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS DAY" at CSU.
This would be a great way to support the freedom of all women.
This would be a great way to support the freedom of all women.
Jordanian boy murders sister for 'honour'
posted 7/11/08 @ 11:03 AM MST
[Religion of Mysogeny(tm) strikes again...]
AMMAN: A 16-year-old boy has been charged with murdering his 23-year-old sister in an apparent "honour killing", a judicial official said.
The unnamed suspect reportedly stabbed his sister 10 times in the heart on Wednesday in a village in the north-eastern governorate of Mafraq, said the official.
"He has confessed to murdering his sister because she disappeared from home for a month with a boyfriend," the official said. It was the seventh reported so-called "honour" killing this year, according to security officials.
In 2007, Jordanian authorities recorded 17 such murders, slightly up on previous years.
Killers in such cases, however, often receive light sentences if convicted, as the parliament has twice refused to reform the penal code despite pressure from human rights groups to end the near impunity of the perpetrators.
AMMAN: A 16-year-old boy has been charged with murdering his 23-year-old sister in an apparent "honour killing", a judicial official said.
The unnamed suspect reportedly stabbed his sister 10 times in the heart on Wednesday in a village in the north-eastern governorate of Mafraq, said the official.
"He has confessed to murdering his sister because she disappeared from home for a month with a boyfriend," the official said. It was the seventh reported so-called "honour" killing this year, according to security officials.
In 2007, Jordanian authorities recorded 17 such murders, slightly up on previous years.
Killers in such cases, however, often receive light sentences if convicted, as the parliament has twice refused to reform the penal code despite pressure from human rights groups to end the near impunity of the perpetrators.
Muslim father strangles, chops daughter... for loving Hindu boy
posted 7/11/08 @ 11:13 AM MST
[Religion of Mysogeny(tm) strikes again...]
Mumbai: A Mumbai Sessions Court on Friday sentenced Mehnaz Bano's parents to life imprisonment after holding them guilty of killing the girl and destroying evidence.
Mehnaz, a resident of Nagpada, was killed by her parents and minor sister on July 2, 2006, for being in love with a Hindu boy. The 18-year-old Mehnaz's parents confessed to having strangled her.
The Nagpada police tracked her father Mohammed Munna Khan through the identification of his employer's company logo on the sacks. Khan and his wife Shehnaz Khan were arrested and during interrogation, they confessed to their crime.
Mehnaz's father admitted he chopped her body into 11 pieces, and dumped it in two sacks beneath the Byculla flyover in South Mumbai.
Their 14-year-old daughter, who was accused of abetting the crime, is in a juvenile home.
Mumbai: A Mumbai Sessions Court on Friday sentenced Mehnaz Bano's parents to life imprisonment after holding them guilty of killing the girl and destroying evidence.
Mehnaz, a resident of Nagpada, was killed by her parents and minor sister on July 2, 2006, for being in love with a Hindu boy. The 18-year-old Mehnaz's parents confessed to having strangled her.
The Nagpada police tracked her father Mohammed Munna Khan through the identification of his employer's company logo on the sacks. Khan and his wife Shehnaz Khan were arrested and during interrogation, they confessed to their crime.
Mehnaz's father admitted he chopped her body into 11 pieces, and dumped it in two sacks beneath the Byculla flyover in South Mumbai.
Their 14-year-old daughter, who was accused of abetting the crime, is in a juvenile home.
Hijab totally useless in Egypt
posted 7/19/08 @ 12:33 PM MST
Almost half of Egyptian women are sexually harassed on a daily basis with more than half of Egyptian men admitting lewd behaviour, the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights said on Thursday.
The group polled 2,020 people -- including men and foreign women -- in Cairo, and the centre's director, Nihad Abul Qomsan, said that the figures showed harassment was on the rise.
Of those surveyed, 83 percent of Egyptian women and 98 percent of foreign women said they had been harassed at some point, while 46 percent of Egyptian women and 52 percent of foreign women said they were harassed daily.
Most women said they were harassed in the street or on public transport, with harassment defined as "any unwelcome behaviour of a sexual nature which makes women feel uneasy and gives them a feeling of insecurity."
Abul Qomsan said that almost two-thirds of Egyptian men -- 62 percent -- admitted harassing women, including those wearing Islamic headscarves.
"This shows that the belief that harassment is linked to women who wear indecent clothing is false," she said, condemning the fact that in the deeply religious country women often feel responsible despite being victims.
The group polled 2,020 people -- including men and foreign women -- in Cairo, and the centre's director, Nihad Abul Qomsan, said that the figures showed harassment was on the rise.
Of those surveyed, 83 percent of Egyptian women and 98 percent of foreign women said they had been harassed at some point, while 46 percent of Egyptian women and 52 percent of foreign women said they were harassed daily.
Most women said they were harassed in the street or on public transport, with harassment defined as "any unwelcome behaviour of a sexual nature which makes women feel uneasy and gives them a feeling of insecurity."
Abul Qomsan said that almost two-thirds of Egyptian men -- 62 percent -- admitted harassing women, including those wearing Islamic headscarves.
"This shows that the belief that harassment is linked to women who wear indecent clothing is false," she said, condemning the fact that in the deeply religious country women often feel responsible despite being victims.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:33 AM MST
Nice article Ms. Babak. I agree you deserve and get my respect. You should be able to wear and do what makes you comfortable.
I would disagree that Muslim women are not oppressed. In the Taliban regime women were not allowed to go to school. I find that oppressive , and a tool used by a weak regime to keep women stupid and thus compliant. Uneducated people ask less questions as they try ti eek out a living.
So I agree that you should be respected , but I also think there re many examples of oppression of Muslim women , and I might add men also.
Nicely written article though and my respects for standing up for your rights.
I would disagree that Muslim women are not oppressed. In the Taliban regime women were not allowed to go to school. I find that oppressive , and a tool used by a weak regime to keep women stupid and thus compliant. Uneducated people ask less questions as they try ti eek out a living.
So I agree that you should be respected , but I also think there re many examples of oppression of Muslim women , and I might add men also.
Nicely written article though and my respects for standing up for your rights.
*Religion of Pus*
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:36 AM MST
The MSA Wahhabi-lobby should inform readers of what Muslim men believe their dead false prophet commanded of Muslimah, "If pus or blood comes out of your husband's nose and you lick is up, you still will not have observed all his rights."
Ask these devout Muslim men if this true; or did the *above cited* Wahhabist authority get the quote wrong? I think Western Muslimah need to understand precisely what this "Religion of Pus" requires of them.
Ask these devout Muslim men if this true; or did the *above cited* Wahhabist authority get the quote wrong? I think Western Muslimah need to understand precisely what this "Religion of Pus" requires of them.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/09/08 @ 8:21 AM MST
http://www.islam101.com/women/hijabfaq.html
Thank You
posted 5/09/08 @ 8:25 AM MST
Great article! I really value and respect your perspective, and uphold the central values of pluralism and religious diversity that define the United States of America. You have a right to choose how you live, and what you wear. And it's wonderful that your choice is a result of admirable principles.
Don't worry about the spammers that are likely to flood the comments with hate filled, intellectually bankrupt invectives.
Don't worry about the spammers that are likely to flood the comments with hate filled, intellectually bankrupt invectives.
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
posted 5/09/08 @ 8:49 AM MST
Originally posted byYes, don't worry about addressing skepticism, criticism or evidence. Dhimmis in wacademia are fully prepared to accept taqiya and religious indoctrination without question.Thank You
Idiotarian sneered: "Don't worry about the spammers that are likely to flood the comments with hate filled, intellectually bankrupt invectives."
Nice conflation, but exposing hate isn't "hate-filled." I don't suppose you'd object to Klan members writing about how their hoods are just expressing their freedom?
If the evidence presented is so "intellectually bankrupt", then it should be easy to refute.
Now kindly can stop misusing the word "spammer", since you're clearly ignorant of its meaning. [Hint: Spam isn't merely opinion with which you disagree.]
Tom
posted 5/09/08 @ 12:26 PM MST
Originally posted byThank You
Great article! I really value and respect your perspective, and uphold the central values of pluralism and religious diversity that define the United States of America. You have a right to choose how you live, and what you wear. And it's wonderful that your choice is a result of admirable principles.
Don't worry about the spammers that are likely to flood the comments with hate filled, intellectually bankrupt invectives.
Yes ignore the spammers. And ignore the women of the Muslim countries of planet Earth too. They're cattle put here for the use of the men. WHat a pointless article this is. Nobody in America questions your "right" to cover your hair, or skin, or face or whatever. Nobody cares. Cover whatever the hell you want to. What's at issue is that women over there HAVE NO CHOICE. Do you sniveling apologists not get that? When you live in a free democracy, you are free to make any choices you wish, and since you'll have been raised without religious tyranny, you'll also be able to make an informed and educated choice. Hey, for your next opinion piece, right about choosing to be genitally mutilated when you're 12 years old. I'm sure your captivated audience would love to learn all about the benefits and liberating honor that comes with having your outer labia and clitoris sawed off by a witch doctor using no anesthesia (or any modern form of disinfectant for that matter). See? Religious persecution can be fun!
Registered Independent
posted 5/09/08 @ 11:47 AM MST
Outside of Appalachia, virtually no one cares whether this woman wears a headscarf or a bird's nest on her head.
What she has written in this article is simply an advertisement for both her religion, and for the supposedly superior morality of Muslin women in general.
And she has the temerity to draw a parallel between her own present attire and that of the Virgin Mary from 2000 years ago. As if there were some sort of connection between them, with which we should identify.
Tell us Ms. Babak, where was your supposedly superior morality a couple of years ago, when your fundamentalist brethren were sawing off the heads of American civilians on videocam?
You're just a little confused about what morality actually means, I think. And about what sort of behavior is worthy of respect.
What she has written in this article is simply an advertisement for both her religion, and for the supposedly superior morality of Muslin women in general.
And she has the temerity to draw a parallel between her own present attire and that of the Virgin Mary from 2000 years ago. As if there were some sort of connection between them, with which we should identify.
Tell us Ms. Babak, where was your supposedly superior morality a couple of years ago, when your fundamentalist brethren were sawing off the heads of American civilians on videocam?
You're just a little confused about what morality actually means, I think. And about what sort of behavior is worthy of respect.
Rockraw
posted 5/09/08 @ 1:33 PM MST
Originally posted byRegistered Independent
Outside of Appalachia, virtually no one cares whether this woman wears a headscarf or a bird's nest on her head.
What she has written in this article is simply an advertisement for both her religion, and for the supposedly superior morality of Muslin women in general.
And she has the temerity to draw a parallel between her own present attire and that of the Virgin Mary from 2000 years ago. As if there were some sort of connection between them, with which we should identify.
Tell us Ms. Babak, where was your supposedly superior morality a couple of years ago, when your fundamentalist brethren were sawing off the heads of American civilians on videocam?
You're just a little confused about what morality actually means, I think. And about what sort of behavior is worthy of respect.
Wow. Really, this is just disgusting.
Let me just put it like this- if you'r going to make sweeping generalizations, then allow me to make a few. I'm assuming you're of the Christian faith... just like a fellow by the name of Rev. Wright, a CHRISTIAN preacher who has popped up quite a bit in the news lately.
If we're making such generalizations, let me ask you: Why do you think God should damn America?
Here's a Pro-tip Reg. Independent: Remember that each religion has its own extremists, and by making the generalizations that you have now, you've just revealed yourself to be a simple fool.
MSA Wahabbi-lobby dossier
posted 5/09/08 @ 2:37 PM MST
Originally posted byAverage Christians have no problem condemning the "liberation theology" of (former Muslim) Rev. Wright.Registered Independent
Rockraw sneered: "Let me just put it like this- if you'r going to make sweeping generalizations, then allow me to make a few."
Conversely, it's hardly a "sweeping generalization" to compare the head-hackers of al-Qaeda with their Wahhabi-lobby apologists in the Apartheid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-- who sponsor these MSA propagandists on American campuses.
From its inception, MSA had close links with the extremist Muslim World League, whose chapters' websites have featured not only Osama bin Laden's propaganda, but also publicity-recruiting campaigns for Wahhabi subversion of the Chechen struggle in Russia. According to author and Islam expert Stephen Schwartz, MSA is a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam.
MSA solicited donations for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, whose assets the U.S. government seized in December 2001 because that organization was giving financial support to the terrorist group Hamas. MSA also has strong ties to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.
Read the MSA dossier. Don't remain ignorant your whole life.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/09/08 @ 3:48 PM MST
Hey Reg Indy , nice to see ya up and typing again. I hope your feeling better.
Just another day at the Collegian. The National Enquirer of college papers.
Just another day at the Collegian. The National Enquirer of college papers.
Originally posted byRegistered Independent
Outside of Appalachia, virtually no one cares whether this woman wears a headscarf or a bird's nest on her head.
What she has written in this article is simply an advertisement for both her religion, and for the supposedly superior morality of Muslin women in general.
And she has the temerity to draw a parallel between her own present attire and that of the Virgin Mary from 2000 years ago. As if there were some sort of connection between them, with which we should identify.
Tell us Ms. Babak, where was your supposedly superior morality a couple of years ago, when your fundamentalist brethren were sawing off the heads of American civilians on videocam?
You're just a little confused about what morality actually means, I think. And about what sort of behavior is worthy of respect.
EM
posted 5/09/08 @ 12:08 PM MST
You will never know true freedom until the day you experience it -- if you ever do, you poor pathetic brainwashed fool.
John 8:31- 38
posted 5/09/08 @ 1:11 PM MST
Originally posted byNow EM, don't be so hard on Sarah. You don't know her heart. It's entirely possible this slave of Allah is merely held hostage to "the power of force" (in her parlance)-- and unable to tell readers what's truly in her heart.EM
EM: "You will never know true freedom until the day you experience it -- if you ever do, you poor pathetic brainwashed fool."
Who knows? Maybe Sarah has found true freedom through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and she's merely hiding her personal relationship with God from her mysogynist male tormentors. She's certainly free to exercise that choice in America.
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." [John 8:31- 38]
Lopa Hassan
posted 5/09/08 @ 1:18 PM MST
In an attempt to defend veiling, Islamic apologists all too often point their fingers to western women accusing them of reducing the definition of liberation to a right of wearing next to nothing. To these people, a woman can only be either scantily-clad or veil-clad; nothing could exist in between the two extremes! It is true that women in the West are often judged on the basis of their appearance, objectified, and very often suffer sexual harassments. Certainly every society has its flaws. I personally don't like to see women being objectified everywhere in the media. We need to realize that North American and European women enjoy a whole array of rights and freedom all of which they had to earn through decades of movements and struggles. The freedom of clothing is just one of their numerous civic rights. If we unjustly reduce their achievements and contributions by stereotyping them as mere 'Baywatch sirens', we would only do a disservice to women of all backward societies(specially Muslim communities) by crushing their hope of ever marching forward.
So what is the most convincing reason for observing hijab according to Muslim scholars? They argue 'wearing headscarves or veils actually stops men from treating women like sex objects. Veils make them ignore women's appearance and draw attention to their personalities and mind'. Nice twisted logic! I argue veiling only reinforces the idea that women are nothing but sex objects which is why they have to take the whole responsibility of 'not exciting men in anyway' by wrapping themselves up with a shapeless piece of garment. Burqas or hijabs had not been able to raise women's status to a liberated and independent group of humans in last 1400 years. No matter how much Islamists apologize in defense of veiling, it has been and will continue to be a symbol of subjugation and oppression of Muslim women all over the world. Segregating women from public life, controlling their freedom of movement, and thereby institutionalizing a system of sexual apartheid are just some of the best contributions that veiling has made so far.
Islamic apologists always get the free ride in spreading their propaganda that Islam gave women the 'true liberation- and a place to actively contribute in society', simply because no moderate Muslim seems to stand up and pose the obvious question, "Is this because of that 'true liberation' we see such a high illiteracy rate among Muslim women in the Middle East?", or "Is that why the Arab world is being crippled by repression of women and is thus marching toward stagnancy?" Nobody seems to point out the fundamental fallacy of the argument of how veiling protects women from male sexual advances. Why don't we see any Muslim man being bothered by the idea that implies each and every man of all age would lose every sense of a rational thought at the sight of a girl's bare arm or her uncovered neck? And what kind of message does it send to a young Muslim girl when she's preparing to set her foot to the outside world? Doesn't she need to learn to have respect toward the opposite sex? Strange how we never think about the various psychological traumas a young woman might suffer while going through the process of mandatory veiling.
Muslim women need more than Quranic teachings; they need moral guidance showing that they could be modest and virtuous without the help of veils or hijabs. And why is it that women always have to worry about what they should or should not wear? After all, what makes a woman respectable has very little to do with her attire, and a lot to do with what is inside her brain and how much she uses it.
Finally, returning to the young women's assertion 'I wear hijab because I choose to......I find the experience liberating"; I'm happy that she feels liberated and has the freedom to choose the hijab. Only thing we need to be reminded is millions of Arab and Iranian women simply don't have that freedom of choice; hijab for them is a forced legal requirement. I think, for Muslim women, raised in a free society, to go and advocate for veils or hijabs is just a cruel mockery to the sufferings of hundreds and thousands of women who were slashed with razors, had acid thrown in their faces, often were killed and imprisoned until the Islamic regime in Iran and other Arab states were able to enforce compulsory veiling and establish their rule. As for 'liberation through hijab' concept, I only have one question- what is so conflicting with the idea of liberation to demand a little freedom of feeling the wind through my hair?
So what is the most convincing reason for observing hijab according to Muslim scholars? They argue 'wearing headscarves or veils actually stops men from treating women like sex objects. Veils make them ignore women's appearance and draw attention to their personalities and mind'. Nice twisted logic! I argue veiling only reinforces the idea that women are nothing but sex objects which is why they have to take the whole responsibility of 'not exciting men in anyway' by wrapping themselves up with a shapeless piece of garment. Burqas or hijabs had not been able to raise women's status to a liberated and independent group of humans in last 1400 years. No matter how much Islamists apologize in defense of veiling, it has been and will continue to be a symbol of subjugation and oppression of Muslim women all over the world. Segregating women from public life, controlling their freedom of movement, and thereby institutionalizing a system of sexual apartheid are just some of the best contributions that veiling has made so far.
Islamic apologists always get the free ride in spreading their propaganda that Islam gave women the 'true liberation- and a place to actively contribute in society', simply because no moderate Muslim seems to stand up and pose the obvious question, "Is this because of that 'true liberation' we see such a high illiteracy rate among Muslim women in the Middle East?", or "Is that why the Arab world is being crippled by repression of women and is thus marching toward stagnancy?" Nobody seems to point out the fundamental fallacy of the argument of how veiling protects women from male sexual advances. Why don't we see any Muslim man being bothered by the idea that implies each and every man of all age would lose every sense of a rational thought at the sight of a girl's bare arm or her uncovered neck? And what kind of message does it send to a young Muslim girl when she's preparing to set her foot to the outside world? Doesn't she need to learn to have respect toward the opposite sex? Strange how we never think about the various psychological traumas a young woman might suffer while going through the process of mandatory veiling.
Muslim women need more than Quranic teachings; they need moral guidance showing that they could be modest and virtuous without the help of veils or hijabs. And why is it that women always have to worry about what they should or should not wear? After all, what makes a woman respectable has very little to do with her attire, and a lot to do with what is inside her brain and how much she uses it.
Finally, returning to the young women's assertion 'I wear hijab because I choose to......I find the experience liberating"; I'm happy that she feels liberated and has the freedom to choose the hijab. Only thing we need to be reminded is millions of Arab and Iranian women simply don't have that freedom of choice; hijab for them is a forced legal requirement. I think, for Muslim women, raised in a free society, to go and advocate for veils or hijabs is just a cruel mockery to the sufferings of hundreds and thousands of women who were slashed with razors, had acid thrown in their faces, often were killed and imprisoned until the Islamic regime in Iran and other Arab states were able to enforce compulsory veiling and establish their rule. As for 'liberation through hijab' concept, I only have one question- what is so conflicting with the idea of liberation to demand a little freedom of feeling the wind through my hair?
Registered Independent
posted 5/09/08 @ 5:47 PM MST
Response to Rockraw:
Now here's a "Pro Tip" you said? Now that is really amusing.
You obviously understand very little of what you read. You're a little obtuse, in fact.
The entire point of this woman's article was merely to chide people that "our women are more modest and chaste than your women, and we wear headscarves like Mary to prove it."
Looking at the big picture of Islam's worldwide violence deliberately targeting civilians, this is a tangential and irrelevant point, at best.
When we start hearing the majority of Moslems publicly denouncing this violence, instead of changing the subject to irrelevancies such as head scarves, perhaps we can start taking their morality poses a bit more seriously.
Now here's a "Pro Tip" you said? Now that is really amusing.
You obviously understand very little of what you read. You're a little obtuse, in fact.
The entire point of this woman's article was merely to chide people that "our women are more modest and chaste than your women, and we wear headscarves like Mary to prove it."
Looking at the big picture of Islam's worldwide violence deliberately targeting civilians, this is a tangential and irrelevant point, at best.
When we start hearing the majority of Moslems publicly denouncing this violence, instead of changing the subject to irrelevancies such as head scarves, perhaps we can start taking their morality poses a bit more seriously.
Wanda
posted 5/09/08 @ 8:15 PM MST
Originally posted byRegistered Independent
The entire point of this woman's article was merely to chide people that "our women are more modest and chaste than your women, and we wear headscarves like Mary to prove it."
Really? Cause the point I was getting was more 'why do you pick on us for wearing head scarves so much? Mary did and you don't pick on her.'
[QUOTE id="4841d546-9557-43f9-ba54-f6a0340c16c8"]
When we start hearing the majority of Moslems publicly denouncing this violence, instead of changing the subject to irrelevancies such as head scarves, perhaps we can start taking their morality poses a bit more seriously.[/QUOTE]
For that to happen you'd actually have to listen, so I'm guessing never. But if you want to start, here's a place http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1467273167&channel=1320130526
Registered Independent
posted 5/09/08 @ 6:48 PM MST
P.S. to Rockraw:
The Reverend Wright is simply a jackass with a podium and a chip on his shoulder.
And in your mind he is comparable to the behavior of the Islamofacists?
You are comparing Reverend Wright's obnoxious remarks, to people who video tape torturous murder? And who blew three thousand of your civilian countrymen to smithereens? And who shot dozens of elementary schoolchildren to death in Belarus? Who have been blowing up Israeli civilians on the street for 20 years? And for the past 6 years have been blowing up their fellow Moslems in Iraq by the thousands? Not to mention all over Europe?
And you think there is some sort of valid comparison there?
Proof positive that you're not capable of thinking your way out of a paper bag.
The Reverend Wright is simply a jackass with a podium and a chip on his shoulder.
And in your mind he is comparable to the behavior of the Islamofacists?
You are comparing Reverend Wright's obnoxious remarks, to people who video tape torturous murder? And who blew three thousand of your civilian countrymen to smithereens? And who shot dozens of elementary schoolchildren to death in Belarus? Who have been blowing up Israeli civilians on the street for 20 years? And for the past 6 years have been blowing up their fellow Moslems in Iraq by the thousands? Not to mention all over Europe?
And you think there is some sort of valid comparison there?
Proof positive that you're not capable of thinking your way out of a paper bag.
Registered Independent
posted 5/09/08 @ 8:41 PM MST
Response to Wanda,
No one picks on anyone for wearing head scarves.
No one pays the slightest attention to what these women do.
Which is why this woman felt the urge to write her article, advertising her own modesty and chastity to the world.
She's about to graduate, and time's a getting short here, for some likely husband material to present himself.
Any volunteers?
No one picks on anyone for wearing head scarves.
No one pays the slightest attention to what these women do.
Which is why this woman felt the urge to write her article, advertising her own modesty and chastity to the world.
She's about to graduate, and time's a getting short here, for some likely husband material to present himself.
Any volunteers?
UmAbbas
posted 5/20/08 @ 8:17 AM MST
about the right of choice what to wear and how to look and other choices which changes the life is possible to discuss on a new forum over here http://umabbas.net/forum/index.php ... thanks and have a great day.
*Honor Killing Victim Wanted to Live Like other German Girls*
posted 5/28/08 @ 8:01 AM MST
She wanted to live like a German, as did Hatin Surucu. And so again, the same question that was asked when Hatin Surucu was murdered: "How many more women have to die before this society wakes up?"
"Honor Killing Victim Wanted to Live Like other German Girls," from Spiegel (*hyperlinked above*):
At age 16, all Morsal Obeidi wanted was to live the way other girls in Germany do. She paid dearly: Obeidi's brother stabbed her 20 times. Her murder has sparked a renewed debate in Germany about the failure of many immigrant families to integrate into Western society.
[...]
Morsal met with Mohammed, her cousin, on the evening of May 15, a Thursday. They were sitting in a McDonald's restaurant. Morsal had only been back in the city for a few months, after a prolonged visit with relatives in Afghanistan. It was spring in Hamburg. As they ate, Mohammed thought about the plan that he was keeping a secret from Morsal. It seemed harmless enough. Mohammed said later that Ahmad, Morsal's brother, had asked him to bring his sister to the Berliner Tor train station. "He said to me: 'I want you to meet Morsal today. Then walk to the Berliner Tor with her. But don't tell her anything. I just want to talk to her."
It seemed harmless enough.
Morsal and Mohammed arrived at the suburban railway station shortly after 11 p.m. They walked around the corner to a small parking lot next to an apartment building, where they sat down to smoke a cigarette. At 11:20 p.m., Ahmad suddenly appeared out of the darkness. Morsal recognized him -- and froze. Ahmad approached his sister and then, without saying a word, began stabbing her. He stabbed her a few times. "I think he must've taken something first. Drugs. Or maybe he got drunk. I tried to stop him, but he pushed me away," says Mohammed.
Ahmad Obeidi, 23, is a strong, athletic young man. Morsal tried to run away, but she stumbled and fell. Ahmad stood over her and continued to stab her, five times, ten times, still silent as he swung his right arm up and down over his sister's body. He seemed intoxicated. The police counted 20 stab wounds, inflicted with such force that Ahmad would later wear a bandage on his right forearm.
Morsal screamed, waking up the residents of the apartment building. Passersby called the police. Ahmad fled to a nearby subway station, and Mohammed followed him. The two cousins boarded a train, where they sat silently across from each other, a killer and his accomplice.
Morsal died.
[...]
In the days following the crime, it was frequently referred to as an "honor killing." A murder for the sake of honor? Is this even possible? Doesn't a man who cold-bloodedly kills his own sister, a girl seven years his junior, little more than a child, in fact lose all honor?
A Criminal for Whom Germany Was Foreign
The family was certainly not without its problems. But there was a critical difference between Morsal, who wanted nothing more than to be free, and Ahmad, who was a criminal to whom Germany had always been a foreign place. He staggered through life, unstable, a failure in life. He killed his sister for having become too comfortable in the ways of the West. He resented her for her uncovered hair, her makeup and her short skirts.
[...]
Morsal, unlike her older sister, was obstinate. She was 14 when she began to resist her parents' authority. She was tired of being complacent, of living according to the old Afghan rules, which seemed irrelevant to her life in Hamburg. She argued with her parents about her appearance and her behavior, her uncovered hair, her makeup, her tight jeans and about smoking and drinking. They argued about her friends and acquaintances. For former fighter pilot Ghulam-Mohammed Obeidi, the family's reputation was at stake. It was the only thing he had left to lose.
A Father and Son Turned Violent
The police say that he became violent, and so did his son Ahmad. They were losing control over Morsal, and losing their self-control in the process. "You are bringing shame to the family," they said to her.
[...]
A number of attacks on Morsal are also noted in his police file. But most of the attacks were never reported -- or documented. According to police records, Ahmad beat up his sister on Nov. 1, 2006. The older sister, the report reads, scratched Morsal in the face as she was lying on the ground. There were more blows on Nov. 8, 2006. This time Ahmad threatened her with a knife, but without using it. He shouted at Morsal, accusing her of violating the family honor. Morsal filed a complaint against her brother, and she was returned to the KNJD. On Jan. 19, 2007, Ahmad allegedly beat her up again, this time in the office of the family's used car and bus dealership. His sister dressed like a slut, Ahmad told the police.
[...]
The Obeidis are not a noticeably conservative family. Nevertheless, it valued traditions, and one of them was to defend the family's property: zar (gold), zamin (property) and zan (women). In their traditional world, it was set in stone that these things are the property of the man....
Read it all.
"Honor Killing Victim Wanted to Live Like other German Girls," from Spiegel (*hyperlinked above*):
At age 16, all Morsal Obeidi wanted was to live the way other girls in Germany do. She paid dearly: Obeidi's brother stabbed her 20 times. Her murder has sparked a renewed debate in Germany about the failure of many immigrant families to integrate into Western society.
[...]
Morsal met with Mohammed, her cousin, on the evening of May 15, a Thursday. They were sitting in a McDonald's restaurant. Morsal had only been back in the city for a few months, after a prolonged visit with relatives in Afghanistan. It was spring in Hamburg. As they ate, Mohammed thought about the plan that he was keeping a secret from Morsal. It seemed harmless enough. Mohammed said later that Ahmad, Morsal's brother, had asked him to bring his sister to the Berliner Tor train station. "He said to me: 'I want you to meet Morsal today. Then walk to the Berliner Tor with her. But don't tell her anything. I just want to talk to her."
It seemed harmless enough.
Morsal and Mohammed arrived at the suburban railway station shortly after 11 p.m. They walked around the corner to a small parking lot next to an apartment building, where they sat down to smoke a cigarette. At 11:20 p.m., Ahmad suddenly appeared out of the darkness. Morsal recognized him -- and froze. Ahmad approached his sister and then, without saying a word, began stabbing her. He stabbed her a few times. "I think he must've taken something first. Drugs. Or maybe he got drunk. I tried to stop him, but he pushed me away," says Mohammed.
Ahmad Obeidi, 23, is a strong, athletic young man. Morsal tried to run away, but she stumbled and fell. Ahmad stood over her and continued to stab her, five times, ten times, still silent as he swung his right arm up and down over his sister's body. He seemed intoxicated. The police counted 20 stab wounds, inflicted with such force that Ahmad would later wear a bandage on his right forearm.
Morsal screamed, waking up the residents of the apartment building. Passersby called the police. Ahmad fled to a nearby subway station, and Mohammed followed him. The two cousins boarded a train, where they sat silently across from each other, a killer and his accomplice.
Morsal died.
[...]
In the days following the crime, it was frequently referred to as an "honor killing." A murder for the sake of honor? Is this even possible? Doesn't a man who cold-bloodedly kills his own sister, a girl seven years his junior, little more than a child, in fact lose all honor?
A Criminal for Whom Germany Was Foreign
The family was certainly not without its problems. But there was a critical difference between Morsal, who wanted nothing more than to be free, and Ahmad, who was a criminal to whom Germany had always been a foreign place. He staggered through life, unstable, a failure in life. He killed his sister for having become too comfortable in the ways of the West. He resented her for her uncovered hair, her makeup and her short skirts.
[...]
Morsal, unlike her older sister, was obstinate. She was 14 when she began to resist her parents' authority. She was tired of being complacent, of living according to the old Afghan rules, which seemed irrelevant to her life in Hamburg. She argued with her parents about her appearance and her behavior, her uncovered hair, her makeup, her tight jeans and about smoking and drinking. They argued about her friends and acquaintances. For former fighter pilot Ghulam-Mohammed Obeidi, the family's reputation was at stake. It was the only thing he had left to lose.
A Father and Son Turned Violent
The police say that he became violent, and so did his son Ahmad. They were losing control over Morsal, and losing their self-control in the process. "You are bringing shame to the family," they said to her.
[...]
A number of attacks on Morsal are also noted in his police file. But most of the attacks were never reported -- or documented. According to police records, Ahmad beat up his sister on Nov. 1, 2006. The older sister, the report reads, scratched Morsal in the face as she was lying on the ground. There were more blows on Nov. 8, 2006. This time Ahmad threatened her with a knife, but without using it. He shouted at Morsal, accusing her of violating the family honor. Morsal filed a complaint against her brother, and she was returned to the KNJD. On Jan. 19, 2007, Ahmad allegedly beat her up again, this time in the office of the family's used car and bus dealership. His sister dressed like a slut, Ahmad told the police.
[...]
The Obeidis are not a noticeably conservative family. Nevertheless, it valued traditions, and one of them was to defend the family's property: zar (gold), zamin (property) and zan (women). In their traditional world, it was set in stone that these things are the property of the man....
Read it all.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/28/08 @ 8:15 AM MST
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!
If you think we are just at war with extremist within Islam you are DEAD wrong. Here is the truth about Muslims and what happens when you allow them into your countries.
These are facts you will never see on the Liberal News.
Islam Is a System
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to the 'reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.
In fact, they may be featured in articles and films and stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal food (clean by Islamic standards), thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burnings:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that's not the case. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidels. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html?hpid=moreheadlines This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France (about 60-70% of all inmates in France's prison system are Muslim, though Muslims make up only about 12% of the country's population. The high % of Muslims in French prisons is a direct consequence of the failure of the people of France to stringently integrate minorities into their country, says a sociologist who has spent the past several years conducting research on Muslims in the French penal system. THE FRENCH PEOPLE HAVE EVEN CREATED THE 'NO GO' ZONES WHERE POLICE WON'T EVEN ENTER THE MUSLIM NEIGHBORHOODS.
If you think we are just at war with extremist within Islam you are DEAD wrong. Here is the truth about Muslims and what happens when you allow them into your countries.
These are facts you will never see on the Liberal News.
Islam Is a System
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to the 'reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.
In fact, they may be featured in articles and films and stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal food (clean by Islamic standards), thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burnings:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that's not the case. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidels. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html?hpid=moreheadlines This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France (about 60-70% of all inmates in France's prison system are Muslim, though Muslims make up only about 12% of the country's population. The high % of Muslims in French prisons is a direct consequence of the failure of the people of France to stringently integrate minorities into their country, says a sociologist who has spent the past several years conducting research on Muslims in the French penal system. THE FRENCH PEOPLE HAVE EVEN CREATED THE 'NO GO' ZONES WHERE POLICE WON'T EVEN ENTER THE MUSLIM NEIGHBORHOODS.
The Chronicles of Hey-sus... and the Neo-Conned
posted 8/17/08 @ 3:56 PM MST
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BEWARE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE...
For the following forum doth take a dark turn on the twenty-eighth of May, two thousand and eight, when "No religious wars here" makes an appearance and quickly morphs into "Jesus H. Christ"!!!
Tread carefully, young student, for the path hereafter is one wrought with online trolls and the worst of nutty loons, one so horrible they call him "Max, an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorists."
As you dig through this discussion archive, pay attention to not just the alias but the dates to find the true chronology.
The next appearance of a troll will be the very next posting.
Will it be Craig Hawley, someone from California who treats the Rocky Mountain Collegian at CSU as his own personal message board and blog for right-wing militant thinking?
Or will it be his side-kick, Registered Independent who has taking a new hankering to posting under other strange aliases in echo chamber support of Hee-Haw-ley?
Or will it be Sgt. Asshat from Chesapeake Bay, a forum master of changeling hyperlinked aliases?
Or will it be Jesus H. Christ, himself?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WARNING! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Chronicles of Hey-sues start now...
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BEWARE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE...
For the following forum doth take a dark turn on the twenty-eighth of May, two thousand and eight, when "No religious wars here" makes an appearance and quickly morphs into "Jesus H. Christ"!!!
Tread carefully, young student, for the path hereafter is one wrought with online trolls and the worst of nutty loons, one so horrible they call him "Max, an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorists."
As you dig through this discussion archive, pay attention to not just the alias but the dates to find the true chronology.
The next appearance of a troll will be the very next posting.
Will it be Craig Hawley, someone from California who treats the Rocky Mountain Collegian at CSU as his own personal message board and blog for right-wing militant thinking?
Or will it be his side-kick, Registered Independent who has taking a new hankering to posting under other strange aliases in echo chamber support of Hee-Haw-ley?
Or will it be Sgt. Asshat from Chesapeake Bay, a forum master of changeling hyperlinked aliases?
Or will it be Jesus H. Christ, himself?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WARNING! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Chronicles of Hey-sues start now...
Craig Hawley /
posted 8/17/08 @ 4:33 PM MST
Very cute. Well done.
Of course you offer not one shred of evidence to back you claims about me.
I have backed up every thing I say with facts that I stand behind so by all means read my posts. I must thank you for encouraging CSU students to read my posts where they will find I am accurate and you are just a poster of rhetoric and opinion.
You claim I use the collegian as my own blog. WRONG I have a blog and currently post to over twenty college boards as well as ten or so mainstream papers.
I also have a face book account with about 65 friends from CSU on it , and a My Space page.
Like I said your post was well done and very cute.
Let me give a quick difference to all about me and Max the 911 nut job.
Here are the credible news sources as listed on Maxwell C Bridges web site. LMAO!
2008-02-09
truthout, News Politics
rense
TomPaine.com - Opinion
AlterNet: Home
The Huffington Post
Media Matters
MotherJones
The Writings of Greg Palast
CounterPunch
Progressive Populist
FindLaw's Writ - Legal Commentary
Intervention
Joe Conason, THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
Salon.com
The Christian Science Monitor Daily Online Newspaper
The New York Times Editorials & Opinion
Want to Know Cover-up Information - 9/11, Energy, Health, Media, Mind Control, War Cover-ups, More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cassel Civil Liberties Watch
BushWhackedUSA
The Nation
UTNE
I, CRINGELY
The Daily Howler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propaganda Matrix.com
Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com
The Power Hour
Somewhere Else
Rather than getting your views about this news agency through other biased mouth-pieces of corporate owned news outlets, read it for yourself.
Al Jazeera
Here are my news sources.
FOX
MSNBC
CNN
Debka Files
ABC
NBC
CBS
Harvard just completed a study showing that mainstream media is absolutely biased against Conservatives , and that FOX news is the most , wait for it , FAIR & BALANCED news source in the country.
Hey if you don't like it cry to Harvard.
http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/01/another-univers.html
So once again thanks for making your inane post and showing all that you are misinformed and intellectually bankrupt.
If you would like to come out of your cowardly shadows , use your real name ( you know take personal responsibility for your words and actions ), and list any post I made that you disagree with I would be only to happy to show you that your wrong. LOL!
Notice students that this post does not provide one single shred of evidence supporting the writers theories. Really quite a pathetic attempt to smear people with absolutely nothing but their opinion.
Have a nice day whoever the F you are. ROFLLMAO!
Of course you offer not one shred of evidence to back you claims about me.
I have backed up every thing I say with facts that I stand behind so by all means read my posts. I must thank you for encouraging CSU students to read my posts where they will find I am accurate and you are just a poster of rhetoric and opinion.
You claim I use the collegian as my own blog. WRONG I have a blog and currently post to over twenty college boards as well as ten or so mainstream papers.
I also have a face book account with about 65 friends from CSU on it , and a My Space page.
Like I said your post was well done and very cute.
Let me give a quick difference to all about me and Max the 911 nut job.
Here are the credible news sources as listed on Maxwell C Bridges web site. LMAO!
2008-02-09
truthout, News Politics
rense
TomPaine.com - Opinion
AlterNet: Home
The Huffington Post
Media Matters
MotherJones
The Writings of Greg Palast
CounterPunch
Progressive Populist
FindLaw's Writ - Legal Commentary
Intervention
Joe Conason, THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
Salon.com
The Christian Science Monitor Daily Online Newspaper
The New York Times Editorials & Opinion
Want to Know Cover-up Information - 9/11, Energy, Health, Media, Mind Control, War Cover-ups, More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cassel Civil Liberties Watch
BushWhackedUSA
The Nation
UTNE
I, CRINGELY
The Daily Howler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propaganda Matrix.com
Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com
The Power Hour
Somewhere Else
Rather than getting your views about this news agency through other biased mouth-pieces of corporate owned news outlets, read it for yourself.
Al Jazeera
Here are my news sources.
FOX
MSNBC
CNN
Debka Files
ABC
NBC
CBS
Harvard just completed a study showing that mainstream media is absolutely biased against Conservatives , and that FOX news is the most , wait for it , FAIR & BALANCED news source in the country.
Hey if you don't like it cry to Harvard.
http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/01/another-univers.html
So once again thanks for making your inane post and showing all that you are misinformed and intellectually bankrupt.
If you would like to come out of your cowardly shadows , use your real name ( you know take personal responsibility for your words and actions ), and list any post I made that you disagree with I would be only to happy to show you that your wrong. LOL!
Notice students that this post does not provide one single shred of evidence supporting the writers theories. Really quite a pathetic attempt to smear people with absolutely nothing but their opinion.
Have a nice day whoever the F you are. ROFLLMAO!
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!
If you think we are just at war with extremist within Islam you are DEAD wrong. Here is the truth about Muslims and what happens when you allow them into your countries.
These are facts you will never see on the Liberal News.
Islam Is a System
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to the 'reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.
In fact, they may be featured in articles and films and stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal food (clean by Islamic standards), thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burnings:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that's not the case. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidels. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html?hpid=moreheadlines This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France (about 60-70% of all inmates in France's prison system are Muslim, though Muslims make up only about 12% of the country's population. The high % of Muslims in French prisons is a direct consequence of the failure of the people of France to stringently integrate minorities into their country, says a sociologist who has spent the past several years conducting research on Muslims in the French penal system. THE FRENCH PEOPLE HAVE EVEN CREATED THE 'NO GO' ZONES WHERE POLICE WON'T EVEN ENTER THE MUSLIM NEIGHBORHOODS.
No religous wars here
posted 5/28/08 @ 11:10 AM MST
WTF?
Luke 6:42
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
Replace "Islam" with "Christianity" in your posting, you wouldn't be far from the truth as well.
Christian schools, Christian programs (for youth, for adults, for families, for couples, for singles, for homosexuals), Bible study, Christian (rock) music, Christian camps, Christian sports...
Every brand of Christianity -- from Catholics to Baptists to Protestians to Mormons to Christian Scientists -- all could be classified as religious systems.
You want to talk mixing Christianity (religion) with politics, don't forget the recent problems of Christian prosletyzing at the Air Force Academy.
FTR, there is no such thing as "Liberal News." Get your facts straight.
Media is corporation owned and controlled. RFK, Jr. gave a recent talk about how all (certaintly > 95%) of traditional media (television, radio, newspaper) is controlled by five entities or people. BrassCheckTV (http://www.brasschecktv.com/) had a recent entry about "Spin" that is worthy of watching.
"Liberal News", my butt.
In fact, when you make stupid off-hand and sweeping comments like "Liberal News" that can easily be proven wrong, you discredit everything else in your posting...
Which amounted to nothing more than baiting a religious war.
Here is a quote from Jesus H. Christ himself regarding Islam:
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Luke 6:42
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
Replace "Islam" with "Christianity" in your posting, you wouldn't be far from the truth as well.
Christian schools, Christian programs (for youth, for adults, for families, for couples, for singles, for homosexuals), Bible study, Christian (rock) music, Christian camps, Christian sports...
Every brand of Christianity -- from Catholics to Baptists to Protestians to Mormons to Christian Scientists -- all could be classified as religious systems.
You want to talk mixing Christianity (religion) with politics, don't forget the recent problems of Christian prosletyzing at the Air Force Academy.
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
If you think we are just at war with extremist within Islam you are DEAD wrong. Here is the truth about Muslims and what happens when you allow them into your countries.
These are facts you will never see on the Liberal News.
Islam Is a System
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
FTR, there is no such thing as "Liberal News." Get your facts straight.
Media is corporation owned and controlled. RFK, Jr. gave a recent talk about how all (certaintly > 95%) of traditional media (television, radio, newspaper) is controlled by five entities or people. BrassCheckTV (http://www.brasschecktv.com/) had a recent entry about "Spin" that is worthy of watching.
"Liberal News", my butt.
In fact, when you make stupid off-hand and sweeping comments like "Liberal News" that can easily be proven wrong, you discredit everything else in your posting...
Which amounted to nothing more than baiting a religious war.
Here is a quote from Jesus H. Christ himself regarding Islam:
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Registered Independent
posted 5/28/08 @ 9:43 PM MST
Originally posted byNo religous wars here
WTF?
Luke 6:42
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and thenshalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
Replace "Islam" with "Christianity" in your posting, you wouldn't be far from the truth as well.
Christian schools, Christian programs (for youth, for adults, for families, for couples, for singles, for homosexuals), Bible study, Christian (rock) music, Christian camps, Christian sports...
Every brand of Christianity -- from Catholics to Baptists to Protestians to Mormons to Christian Scientists -- all could be classified as religious systems.
You want to talk mixing Christianity (religion) with politics, don't forget the recent problems of Christian prosletyzing at the Air Force Academy.
FTR, there is no such thing as "Liberal News." Get your facts straight.
Media is corporation owned and controlled. RFK, Jr. gave a recent talk about how all (certaintly > 95%) of traditional media (television, radio, newspaper) is controlled by five entities or people. BrassCheckTV (http://www.brasschecktv.com/) had a recent entry about "Spin" that is worthy of watching.
"Liberal News", my butt.
In fact, when you make stupid off-hand and sweeping comments like "Liberal News" that can easily be proven wrong, you discredit everything else in your posting...
Which amounted to nothing more than baiting a religious war.
Here is a quote from Jesus H. Christ himself regarding Islam:
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
You are positive proof that a smattering of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable and quoting the Bible inappropriately. As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge.
Actually Christ didn't make any remarks at all in reference to Islam, you dunce. Because Islam didn't exist until the year 575 A.D.
Christ had been dead for approximately 575 years
at the time Muhammed allowed his henchmen to ride throughout the middle east, with Muhammed's full blessing, lopping off the heads of anyone who would not immediately convert to Islam on the spot.
That's one heck of a religion, hey.
You either became Moslem, or you were violently killed. Didn't you know that was how Islam was spread? While Muhammed was alive and with his full knowledge?
Not by the usual conversational convincing as Christians try to do; but under immediate threat of horrible death. Didn't you know that?
And very little has changed in the ensuing 1500 years in the middle east, as we all have seen. That's why the heads of civilian kidnap victims were sawed off on videocam to cries of "God is great"!
Something tells me that you don't even know that the word Islam means "submit".
The day that your analysis will hold water is the day that Christians start blithely lopping of the heads of anyone who won't convert to Christianity.
Get the difference now?
Craig Hawley
posted 5/28/08 @ 9:51 PM MST
You can lead a mule to water Reg Indy , but you can't make him smart. LOL!
Well said as usual.
Well said as usual.
Originally posted byNo religous wars here
WTF?
Luke 6:42
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
Replace "Islam" with "Christianity" in your posting, you wouldn't be far from the truth as well.
Christian schools, Christian programs (for youth, for adults, for families, for couples, for singles, for homosexuals), Bible study, Christian (rock) music, Christian camps, Christian sports...
Every brand of Christianity -- from Catholics to Baptists to Protestians to Mormons to Christian Scientists -- all could be classified as religious systems.
You want to talk mixing Christianity (religion) with politics, don't forget the recent problems of Christian prosletyzing at the Air Force Academy.
FTR, there is no such thing as "Liberal News." Get your facts straight.
Media is corporation owned and controlled. RFK, Jr. gave a recent talk about how all (certaintly > 95%) of traditional media (television, radio, newspaper) is controlled by five entities or people. BrassCheckTV (http://www.brasschecktv.com/) had a recent entry about "Spin" that is worthy of watching.
"Liberal News", my butt.
In fact, when you make stupid off-hand and sweeping comments like "Liberal News" that can easily be proven wrong, you discredit everything else in your posting...
Which amounted to nothing more than baiting a religious war.
Here is a quote from Jesus H. Christ himself regarding Islam:
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Jesus H. Christ
posted 5/28/08 @ 10:40 PM MST
Originally posted byNo religous wars here
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
What part of the above quote don't you understand?
Your words are so fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."
So nice of you to step forth to talk about splinters in my eyes with beams in your own, thou hypocrite.
Registered Independent
posted 5/28/08 @ 11:28 PM MST
Originally posted byNo religous wars here
WTF?
Luke 6:42
"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
Replace "Islam" with "Christianity" in your posting, you wouldn't be far from the truth as well.
Christian schools, Christian programs (for youth, for adults, for families, for couples, for singles, for homosexuals), Bible study, Christian (rock) music, Christian camps, Christian sports...
Every brand of Christianity -- from Catholics to Baptists to Protestians to Mormons to Christian Scientists -- all could be classified as religious systems.
You want to talk mixing Christianity (religion) with politics, don't forget the recent problems of Christian prosletyzing at the Air Force Academy.
FTR, there is no such thing as "Liberal News." Get your facts straight.
Media is corporation owned and controlled. RFK, Jr. gave a recent talk about how all (certaintly > 95%) of traditional media (television, radio, newspaper) is controlled by five entities or people. BrassCheckTV (http://www.brasschecktv.com/) had a recent entry about "Spin" that is worthy of watching.
"Liberal News", my butt.
In fact, when you make stupid off-hand and sweeping comments like "Liberal News" that can easily be proven wrong, you discredit everything else in your posting...
Which amounted to nothing more than baiting a religious war.
Here is a quote from Jesus H. Christ himself regarding Islam:
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
What part of the reality that Christ spoke those words almost 600 years before the derivative religion of Islam was made up; didn't you understand?
"Many mansions" has a very different meaning than "any and all mansions".
What part of "Islam was spread by the sword" didn't you understand? We're talking about mass murder in the name of a supposed religion.
Christ was preparing a place for his followers, he was speaking to them.
Not to people who decided to worship a tribal moon god who sanctioned murder in his name; almost 600 years later.
He wasn't speaking to the followers of Islam, who trivialize Christ and place a man who sanctioned murder, above him.
Christ was not preparing a place in heaven for people who murdered to force others to worship Mohammed, obviously.
Answering the Sockpuppet
posted 5/29/08 @ 7:19 AM MST
Originally posted byIdiotarian sockpuppet is spewing refired nonsense it overheard-- which has been answered at length in the *above hyperlink* and elsewhere.No religous wars here
idiotarian sockpuppet drooled: "Here is a quote from Jesus H. Christ himself regarding Islam:
John 14:2
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
In short, when Jesus told His disciples that "In my Father's house are many mansions", He was assuring His disciples that there was room for all who believe, and a place for each who follow Him.
What did Jesus mean when He said that "I go to prepare a place for you"? Was Jesus going to this mansion to fluff the pillows? NO, He went to the Father, through His death and resurrection, in order to obtain the right for His followers, both then and now, to be in heaven. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross gives us sinners the ability, through God's grace alone and not of our own words or deeds, to possess our "place" in the Father's mansion if we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and follow Him.
The Bible clearly says that He is the only way, NO ONE comes to the Father (God) EXCEPT through His Son Jesus Christ. Neither Jesus, nor any of God's Prophets, ever said that there were other messengers sent to other nations.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/28/08 @ 5:04 PM MST
There is a difference. And we are talking current events so don't bother bringing up the Christian Crusades as that is history and not current events.
I notice you did not say one thing from the article3 was not factual.
You just try to equate Christianity to Islam.
Let's see I know of no Christians on a large scale that put out fatwa's and send hit squads to kill anyone that denigrates Christ.
Quite the opposite.
Christians are not demanding special public schools where Christian traditions are taught and kids indoctrinated , but Islam and Muslims are demanding that in every country they live in.
All religion is a system. I guess you in your huge intellect completely missed the point of the article. It was not to tell you that Islam is a system , it was to tell you this system is anti anything but Muslim and bent on world domination.
I was Born in India. Obviously you have never lived in a country like that. You spout JFK Jr. , a flaming Liberal , and have no first hand knowledge of what your speaking of.
They want special foot baths and other religious things on my tax dollars , yet I a Christina can't pray on campus.
Gays in Frisco denigrate and assault Christians in their Churches , yet I have yet to see a Gay pride attack on a Mosque.
Talk about hypocrites. Gays are so mad because a lot of Christians don't approve of their lifestyle , that they destroy property and physically assault Christians.
Yet Ahmadinejad and Muslims who kill gays are off limits. They invite Ahmadinejad to Columbia University where he basically says America is immoral and we have gays where Iran does not according to him. That's because they kill them.
As far a RFK Jr. you quote a flaming Liberal about media bias. I guess you use sweeping generalizations to and you expect Me to take you seriously.
I am not even going to dignify your personal attack on me with an answer. Just makes you look like a pinhead.
But if you go look at my archived posts you will see that they have done a survey of actual journalists , not the owners but the people that actually speak on air or write articles.
In 40 years the journalists in this study were asked what they considered them selves. It has never been closer than two to one in favor of Liberals. That is a fact that you can't dispute and makes JFK Jr. Look like an ignorant person.
Do you want me to quote Dan Rather-gate and all the other obvious examples of Liberal Media Bias.
God a high school kid could see the Liberal Bias in the media.
Now let's talk about Fox News. A university just completed a study and named Fox News as , guess what , the most fair and balanced news source out there. Now this was a Liberal University.
You must ask your self why Fox News kicks the crap out of any competition , many times getting higher ratings than than three of the other top competitors.
So if there is so much unbiased news out there serving the conservative community , than why do they all watch Fox News.
Fox news has a definite conservative bent to it and the others have a decidedly Liberal bent to them.
You act like you can't see any Liberal Media Bias. Well we all know what is wrong with people who can't see. THEY ARE BLIND.
Your quote from the Bible is not about Islam. My Father was a minister for 50 years , and you are distorting the Bible to try to make a point.
God gave us free will. Islam wants to take that away. Islam and Muslims are threatened by freedom.
Every heard of an honor killing. One Muslim father said his daughter was a whore for wearing a short skirt in New York and killed her with no remorse.
Islam around the world says the west is full of whores and immoral people. They consider freedom to be a direct blasphemy of their relgion. If you have freedom of choice you can choose something other than Islam and you can follow or not follow Allah and Mohamed.
The only freedom Islam embraces is the freedom to do as your told by Islam and the Mullahs. A Christian can stand up in church and say God is Dead , and nothing will happen.
Do that in a Mosque and you won't live out the day.
You and your mindset and people like you are dangerous to our country. If we listen to you , we will lose this country.
The only good that would come from that is that people like you would be not be talking your ignorant trash like now.
You do realize the religion you defend would force you to live under Sharia Law and if you didn't like it they would execute you.
So call me crazy but fighting for a religion that would kill me for wanting to be free , is ignorant beyond belief.
That is unless you are already Muslim in which case you are part of the army of Muslims trying to take over the planet. You will not do this.
If Muslims persist , they will get the holy war they are begging for.
If you think Islam is such a great religion then why don't you move to a Muslim country?
I can't stand niave people who tout Islam from their free countries , and have no clue what they are fighting for.
My Step Son was home for Memorial Day from his fifth tour of duty. He is in Afghanistan. I wish you could go talk to the Afghan people about Islam and Muslims.
Especially the Women.
One final thing. If Islam is so tolerant then why can't I take my Bible with me to their country. They bring their book into my Christian Country.
Their is only one niave and silly person here in this thread so far and it is you.
I notice you did not say one thing from the article3 was not factual.
You just try to equate Christianity to Islam.
Let's see I know of no Christians on a large scale that put out fatwa's and send hit squads to kill anyone that denigrates Christ.
Quite the opposite.
Christians are not demanding special public schools where Christian traditions are taught and kids indoctrinated , but Islam and Muslims are demanding that in every country they live in.
All religion is a system. I guess you in your huge intellect completely missed the point of the article. It was not to tell you that Islam is a system , it was to tell you this system is anti anything but Muslim and bent on world domination.
I was Born in India. Obviously you have never lived in a country like that. You spout JFK Jr. , a flaming Liberal , and have no first hand knowledge of what your speaking of.
They want special foot baths and other religious things on my tax dollars , yet I a Christina can't pray on campus.
Gays in Frisco denigrate and assault Christians in their Churches , yet I have yet to see a Gay pride attack on a Mosque.
Talk about hypocrites. Gays are so mad because a lot of Christians don't approve of their lifestyle , that they destroy property and physically assault Christians.
Yet Ahmadinejad and Muslims who kill gays are off limits. They invite Ahmadinejad to Columbia University where he basically says America is immoral and we have gays where Iran does not according to him. That's because they kill them.
As far a RFK Jr. you quote a flaming Liberal about media bias. I guess you use sweeping generalizations to and you expect Me to take you seriously.
I am not even going to dignify your personal attack on me with an answer. Just makes you look like a pinhead.
But if you go look at my archived posts you will see that they have done a survey of actual journalists , not the owners but the people that actually speak on air or write articles.
In 40 years the journalists in this study were asked what they considered them selves. It has never been closer than two to one in favor of Liberals. That is a fact that you can't dispute and makes JFK Jr. Look like an ignorant person.
Do you want me to quote Dan Rather-gate and all the other obvious examples of Liberal Media Bias.
God a high school kid could see the Liberal Bias in the media.
Now let's talk about Fox News. A university just completed a study and named Fox News as , guess what , the most fair and balanced news source out there. Now this was a Liberal University.
You must ask your self why Fox News kicks the crap out of any competition , many times getting higher ratings than than three of the other top competitors.
So if there is so much unbiased news out there serving the conservative community , than why do they all watch Fox News.
Fox news has a definite conservative bent to it and the others have a decidedly Liberal bent to them.
You act like you can't see any Liberal Media Bias. Well we all know what is wrong with people who can't see. THEY ARE BLIND.
Your quote from the Bible is not about Islam. My Father was a minister for 50 years , and you are distorting the Bible to try to make a point.
God gave us free will. Islam wants to take that away. Islam and Muslims are threatened by freedom.
Every heard of an honor killing. One Muslim father said his daughter was a whore for wearing a short skirt in New York and killed her with no remorse.
Islam around the world says the west is full of whores and immoral people. They consider freedom to be a direct blasphemy of their relgion. If you have freedom of choice you can choose something other than Islam and you can follow or not follow Allah and Mohamed.
The only freedom Islam embraces is the freedom to do as your told by Islam and the Mullahs. A Christian can stand up in church and say God is Dead , and nothing will happen.
Do that in a Mosque and you won't live out the day.
You and your mindset and people like you are dangerous to our country. If we listen to you , we will lose this country.
The only good that would come from that is that people like you would be not be talking your ignorant trash like now.
You do realize the religion you defend would force you to live under Sharia Law and if you didn't like it they would execute you.
So call me crazy but fighting for a religion that would kill me for wanting to be free , is ignorant beyond belief.
That is unless you are already Muslim in which case you are part of the army of Muslims trying to take over the planet. You will not do this.
If Muslims persist , they will get the holy war they are begging for.
If you think Islam is such a great religion then why don't you move to a Muslim country?
I can't stand niave people who tout Islam from their free countries , and have no clue what they are fighting for.
My Step Son was home for Memorial Day from his fifth tour of duty. He is in Afghanistan. I wish you could go talk to the Afghan people about Islam and Muslims.
Especially the Women.
One final thing. If Islam is so tolerant then why can't I take my Bible with me to their country. They bring their book into my Christian Country.
Their is only one niave and silly person here in this thread so far and it is you.
Registered Independent
posted 5/28/08 @ 10:22 PM MST
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
There is a difference. And we are talking current events so don't bother bringing up the Christian Crusades as that is history and not current events.
I notice you did not say one thing from the article3 was not factual.
You just try to equate Christianity to Islam.
Let's see I know of no Christians on a large scale that put out fatwa's and send hit squads to kill anyone that denigrates Christ.
Quite the opposite.
Christians are not demanding special public schools where Christian traditions are taught and kids indoctrinated , but Islam and Muslims are demanding that in every country they live in.
All religion is a system. I guess you in your huge intellect completely missed the point of the article. It was not to tell you that Islam is a system , it was to tell you this system is anti anything but Muslim and bent on world domination.
I was Born in India. Obviously you have never lived in a country like that. You spout JFK Jr. , a flaming Liberal , and have no first hand knowledge of what your speaking of.
They want special foot baths and other religious things on my tax dollars , yet I a Christina can't pray on campus.
Gays in Frisco denigrate and assault Christians in their Churches , yet I have yet to see a Gay pride attack on a Mosque.
Talk about hypocrites. Gays are so mad because a lot of Christians don't approve of their lifestyle , that they destroy property and physically assault Christians.
Yet Ahmadinejad and Muslims who kill gays are off limits. They invite Ahmadinejad to Columbia University where he basically says America is immoral and we have gays where Iran does not according to him. That's because they kill them.
As far a RFK Jr. you quote a flaming Liberal about media bias. I guess you use sweeping generalizations to and you expect Me to take you seriously.
I am not even going to dignify your personal attack on me with an answer. Just makes you look like a pinhead.
But if you go look at my archived posts you will see that they have done a survey of actual journalists , not the owners but the people that actually speak on air or write articles.
In 40 years the journalists in this study were asked what they considered them selves. It has never been closer than two to one in favor of Liberals. That is a fact that you can't dispute and makes JFK Jr. Look like an ignorant person.
Do you want me to quote Dan Rather-gate and all the other obvious examples of Liberal Media Bias.
God a high school kid could see the Liberal Bias in the media.
Now let's talk about Fox News. A university just completed a study and named Fox News as , guess what , the most fair and balanced news source out there. Now this was a Liberal University.
You must ask your self why Fox News kicks the crap out of any competition , many times getting higher ratings than than three of the other top competitors.
So if there is so much unbiased news out there serving the conservative community , than why do they all watch Fox News.
Fox news has a definite conservative bent to it and the others have a decidedly Liberal bent to them.
You act like you can't see any Liberal Media Bias. Well we all know what is wrong with people who can't see. THEY ARE BLIND.
Your quote from the Bible is not about Islam. My Father was a minister for 50 years , and you are distorting the Bible to try to make a point.
God gave us free will. Islam wants to take that away. Islam and Muslims are threatened by freedom.
Every heard of an honor killing. One Muslim father said his daughter was a whore for wearing a short skirt in New York and killed her with no remorse.
Islam around the world says the west is full of whores and immoral people. They consider freedom to be a direct blasphemy of their relgion. If you have freedom of choice you can choose something other than Islam and you can follow or not follow Allah and Mohamed.
The only freedom Islam embraces is the freedom to do as your told by Islam and the Mullahs. A Christian can stand up in church and say God is Dead , and nothing will happen.
Do that in a Mosque and you won't live out the day.
You and your mindset and people like you are dangerous to our country. If we listen to you , we will lose this country.
The only good that would come from that is that people like you would be not be talking your ignorant trash like now.
You do realize the religion you defend would force you to live under Sharia Law and if you didn't like it they would execute you.
So call me crazy but fighting for a religion that would kill me for wanting to be free , is ignorant beyond belief.
That is unless you are already Muslim in which case you are part of the army of Muslims trying to take over the planet. You will not do this.
If Muslims persist , they will get the holy war they are begging for.
If you think Islam is such a great religion then why don't you move to a Muslim country?
I can't stand niave people who tout Islam from their free countries , and have no clue what they are fighting for.
My Step Son was home for Memorial Day from his fifth tour of duty. He is in Afghanistan. I wish you could go talk to the Afghan people about Islam and Muslims.
Especially the Women.
One final thing. If Islam is so tolerant then why can't I take my Bible with me to their country. They bring their book into my Christian Country.
Their is only one niave and silly person here in this thread so far and it is you.
Not only that Mr. Hawley, but when our troops were stationed in Saudia Arabia during Operation Desert Storm (we were there, as all will recall, to defend the Saudi's, at their own request) our American troops were not allowed to wear their Christian crosses around their necks while they were on Saudi soil. Even if the crosses were out of sight under their shirts.
Sharia law in action, folks. No exceptions are made for Christians, even if they are risking their lives for Moslems, thousands of miles from home.
And does everyone recall the idiocy of the newscasters, on all channels, during the beginning of our present war in Iraq? Virtually every middle eastern city was called "the holy city of" or the "sacred city of".
For the first couple of years the newspeople on every channel actually believed this idiocy they were fed, that every second city throughout the middle east was "a holy city."
Complete nonsense. And now today, none of the news people preface the name of any middle eastern city with the words "the holy city of . . ." any more at all. They wised up to the game of "everything about Islam is holy . . ."
Middle eastern cities are no more "holy" than are American cities. And Moslem women are no more moral than are American women, with our various religious backgrounds. End of story.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/28/08 @ 5:08 PM MST
Here is another article by an esteemed Doctor. If you would like to see the truth about this war then read this.
An Articulate Piece written on the War we are Fighting
'For what it's worth ..
This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic
terrorism I have ever read. Dr. Vernon Chong is, without a doubt, the most
articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq If
you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair
evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as
Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade
deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these
thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as
they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be
a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical
Center in San Antonio '
If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force web site
and look him up:
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000' Then read below.
Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq : This WAR is REAL
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is
now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we
have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize
what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States
is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following
attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were
no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor,
President Ford.
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference. You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).
(seehttp:// www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the
six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the
way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill
all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone
else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no
protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims
there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own
pronouncements
-- killing all of us 'infidels.' I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What
would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to
the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our
business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will
not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us
dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have
produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.
The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered
and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot
help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from
Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and
told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will
be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France Our one hope with France is that they
might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished,
too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However,
it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and
fading fast.
Without our support, Great Britain will go. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will
all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if
they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim
terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and
be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until
we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort
to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by 'imploding.' That is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and
failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided,
there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does
that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the
duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which
we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our
civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them
permanently
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory .. and,
in fact, added many more since that time.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a
clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them
out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose.
I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are
disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are
divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to
our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best
what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of
a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police..
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their
tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein.
And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed
400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same
type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging
their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq And, still more recently,
the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources
internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the 'humiliating' of some
Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses
through the streets, not beheading them, but 'humiliating' them.
Can they be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and
death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war,
nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner
issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other
country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean
that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means
that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are
in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We
must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the
Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into
ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the
world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is
valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful,
and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us,
and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad
in the world. We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and
no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the
Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to
be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take
over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on
the established French traditions.
The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not
be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united
resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide,
that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves,
once they are in power.
Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then
start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the
masses.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from
the politically correct about the 'peaceful Muslims?'
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election,
the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we
are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are
talking about Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our
national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but
for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether
Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the
Politicians and media of our country and the free world.
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our
'leaders' in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault
with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this,
that we must UNITE!
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, may be part of the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Search News:
Iran
Search the Web | View Map
An Articulate Piece written on the War we are Fighting
'For what it's worth ..
This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic
terrorism I have ever read. Dr. Vernon Chong is, without a doubt, the most
articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq If
you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair
evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as
Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade
deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these
thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as
they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be
a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical
Center in San Antonio '
If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force web site
and look him up:
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000' Then read below.
Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq : This WAR is REAL
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is
now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we
have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize
what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States
is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following
attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were
no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor,
President Ford.
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference. You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).
(seehttp:// www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the
six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the
way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill
all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone
else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no
protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims
there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own
pronouncements
-- killing all of us 'infidels.' I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What
would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to
the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our
business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will
not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us
dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have
produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.
The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered
and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot
help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from
Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and
told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will
be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France Our one hope with France is that they
might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished,
too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However,
it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and
fading fast.
Without our support, Great Britain will go. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will
all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if
they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim
terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and
be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until
we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort
to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by 'imploding.' That is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and
failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided,
there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does
that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the
duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which
we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our
civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them
permanently
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory .. and,
in fact, added many more since that time.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a
clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them
out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose.
I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are
disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are
divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to
our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best
what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of
a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police..
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their
tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein.
And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed
400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same
type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging
their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq And, still more recently,
the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources
internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the 'humiliating' of some
Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses
through the streets, not beheading them, but 'humiliating' them.
Can they be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and
death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war,
nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner
issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other
country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean
that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means
that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are
in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We
must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the
Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into
ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the
world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is
valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful,
and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us,
and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad
in the world. We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and
no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the
Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to
be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take
over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on
the established French traditions.
The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not
be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united
resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide,
that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves,
once they are in power.
Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then
start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the
masses.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from
the politically correct about the 'peaceful Muslims?'
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election,
the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we
are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are
talking about Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our
national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but
for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether
Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the
Politicians and media of our country and the free world.
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our
'leaders' in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault
with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this,
that we must UNITE!
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, may be part of the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Search News:
Iran
Search the Web | View Map
Church of England: UK will be "Islamic nation" in 2038
posted 5/29/08 @ 11:27 AM MST
Originally posted byIf recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.Craig Hawley
Without our support, Great Britain will go. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.
This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. Perhaps most importantly the government has chosen to allow hard-liners to act as representing all Muslims, and more liberal Muslims have almost completely failed to produce any leadership voices to compete, leading many Britons to wonder if there are indeed many liberal Muslims at all, surely a mistake.
At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland's aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.
While men-only gentlemen's clubs are now being dubbed unlawful, we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging 'Muslim women only' sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day -- a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true. Prisons are replete with imams who are keen to inculcate conservative Islam in any inmates who are deemed to be culturally 'Muslim': the Prison service in effect treats such prisoners as a cultural block to be preached to by imams at will. Would the Prison service send all those with 'C of E' on their papers to confirmation classes with the chaplain?! We could go on.
The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates. Charles Taylor's new and classic work on the Secular Age charts the rise of the secular mindset and what he calls the 'excarnation' of Christianity as it is levered out of state policy and structures. Christianity is now regarded as bad news, the liberal elite's attack developed in the 1960s took root in the educationalist empire, and to some extent even in areas of the church.
Today the Christian story is fading from public imagination, while Islam grows apace. There needs to be some fresh thinking in this area where the claims of Christ are sensitively explained. Our church leaders must develop ways of explaining this, as our feature on mission and evangelism this week demonstrates.
Craig Hawley
posted 5/29/08 @ 9:04 PM MST
I agree with you UK. Christians need to start fighting this war in earnest. However the evangelical Christian movement is exploding.
Islam is an insidious religion that starts by acting like it just wants to move into your country and get along.
Next they ask for special treatment and keep going until they own the country then they put it under sharia law and lock it down , killing any who dare object.
Islam is an insidious religion that starts by acting like it just wants to move into your country and get along.
Next they ask for special treatment and keep going until they own the country then they put it under sharia law and lock it down , killing any who dare object.
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
Here is another article by an esteemed Doctor. If you would like to see the truth about this war then read this.
An Articulate Piece written on the War we are Fighting
'For what it's worth ..
This is the most cogent and powerful essay on the threat of Islamic
terrorism I have ever read. Dr. Vernon Chong is, without a doubt, the most
articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq If
you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair
evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as
Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade
deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these
thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as
they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be
a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical
Center in San Antonio '
If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force web site
and look him up:
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000' Then read below.
Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq : This WAR is REAL
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is
now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we
have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize
what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States
is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following
attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were
no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor,
President Ford.
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference. You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).
(seehttp:// www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the
six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the
way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill
all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone
else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no
protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims
there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own
pronouncements
-- killing all of us 'infidels.' I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What
would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to
the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our
business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will
not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us
dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have
produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.
The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered
and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot
help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from
Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and
told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will
be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France Our one hope with France is that they
might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished,
too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However,
it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and
fading fast.
Without our support, Great Britain will go. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will
all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if
they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim
terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and
be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until
we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort
to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by 'imploding.' That is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and
failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided,
there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does
that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the
duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which
we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our
civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them
permanently
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory .. and,
in fact, added many more since that time.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a
clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them
out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose.
I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are
disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are
divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to
our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best
what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of
a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police..
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their
tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein.
And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed
400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same
type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging
their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq And, still more recently,
the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources
internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the 'humiliating' of some
Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses
through the streets, not beheading them, but 'humiliating' them.
Can they be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and
death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war,
nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner
issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other
country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean
that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means
that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are
in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We
must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the
Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into
ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the
world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is
valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful,
and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us,
and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad
in the world. We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and
no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the
Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to
be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take
over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on
the established French traditions.
The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not
be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united
resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide,
that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves,
once they are in power.
Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then
start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the
masses.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from
the politically correct about the 'peaceful Muslims?'
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election,
the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we
are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are
talking about Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our
national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but
for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether
Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the
Politicians and media of our country and the free world.
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our
'leaders' in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault
with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this,
that we must UNITE!
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, may be part of the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Search News:
Iran
Search the Web | View Map
Craig Hawley
posted 5/28/08 @ 6:29 PM MST
No Religious Wars Here , whoever your anonymous won't take responsibility for your words is , i love how you started your post.
WTF! I see you like to use profanity and then quote Bible verses. I seriously doubt God or Jesus ever said WTF!
You said my generalizations were stupid and discredited everything I said.
Well one might say that your starting your post off with profanity does the same thing to your entire post.
People who curse have nothing intelligent left to say. This is obvious from your post. LOL!
Now you said I was stupid to say their is a Liberal Media Bias and you could easily disprove this. I noticed you did not cite anything just blow your own horn with no back up. Man you suck at debate.
Here is a one article that supports me and took me 5 seconds to Google.
Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative
By Brent Baker | March 19, 2008 - 09:52 ET
A survey conducted late last year and released Monday, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, confirmed the obvious -- that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented. Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times discovered the nugget buried deep in the annual "State of the Media" report from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism and FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night highlighted the findings from the survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets:
Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal.
Only 19 percent of the public consider themselves liberal. And it's not much of a leap to presume many of the 53 percent who describe themselves as "moderate" are really quite liberal.
Story Continues Below Ad ?
Hume's item on the March 18 Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC:
A newly released survey indicates that conservatives in the national press corps are a lonely lot. 585 [the total of national, local and Internet] journalists were polled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative.
Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal. The Washington Times quotes project deputy director Amy Mitchell as saying that the findings are about the same as in a similar survey done four years ago.
The MRC's "Media Bias Basics" has a section with the numbers from 2004, which are indeed very similar.
Harper's March 18 Washington Times article: "Right underrepresented in press's diversity."
The political ideology question is #36 on page 55 of the PDF with the results for the survey conducted September 17 to December 3, 2007. For national broadcast journalists (97 polled), zero percent call themselves "very conservative" while 6 percent said they are "very liberal."
Overall, only 8 percent of those at national outlets attend church or synagogue weekly.
The political ideology results were summarized in "Section III" of the report released on March 17 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "Financial Woes Now Overshadow All Other Concerns for Journalists The Web: Alarming, Appealing and a Challenge to Journalistic Values." The relevant portion:
Journalists' Ideology
As was the case in 2004, majorities of the national and local journalists surveyed describe themselves as political moderates; 53% of national journalists and 58% of local journalists say they are moderates. About a third of national journalists (32%), and 23% of local journalists, describe themselves as liberals. Relatively small minorities of national and local journalists call themselves conservatives (8% national, 14% local).
Internet journalists as a group tend to be more liberal than either national or local journalists. Fewer than half (46%) call themselves moderates, while 39% are self-described liberals and just 9% are conservatives.
Among the population as a whole, 36% call themselves conservatives -- more than triple the percentage of national and internet journalists, and more than double the percentage of local journalists. About four-in-ten (39%) characterize their political views as moderate, while 19% are self-described liberals, based on surveys conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
--Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
So since I can Google articles and experts that support me , and you can do the same we have what is called a stalemate you moron.
So now you said you could easily defeat my argument which you can't do either easily or at all for that matter.
I guess that makes you the stupid one and a liar. Oh what a tangled web. LOL!
These are facts that are as current as 2007 and I alre4ady listed the study that was conducted every ten years since the sixties. They all support me not you.
You just go right ahead believing that the media is not Liberally biased despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Many others in this thread have posted the truth about Islam and your trying to equate and denigrate Christianity to Islam just makes you look like a total ignorant fool.
Your arguments are Vacuous and inane.
WTF! I see you like to use profanity and then quote Bible verses. I seriously doubt God or Jesus ever said WTF!
You said my generalizations were stupid and discredited everything I said.
Well one might say that your starting your post off with profanity does the same thing to your entire post.
People who curse have nothing intelligent left to say. This is obvious from your post. LOL!
Now you said I was stupid to say their is a Liberal Media Bias and you could easily disprove this. I noticed you did not cite anything just blow your own horn with no back up. Man you suck at debate.
Here is a one article that supports me and took me 5 seconds to Google.
Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative
By Brent Baker | March 19, 2008 - 09:52 ET
A survey conducted late last year and released Monday, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, confirmed the obvious -- that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented. Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times discovered the nugget buried deep in the annual "State of the Media" report from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism and FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night highlighted the findings from the survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets:
Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal.
Only 19 percent of the public consider themselves liberal. And it's not much of a leap to presume many of the 53 percent who describe themselves as "moderate" are really quite liberal.
Story Continues Below Ad ?
Hume's item on the March 18 Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC:
A newly released survey indicates that conservatives in the national press corps are a lonely lot. 585 [the total of national, local and Internet] journalists were polled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative.
Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal. The Washington Times quotes project deputy director Amy Mitchell as saying that the findings are about the same as in a similar survey done four years ago.
The MRC's "Media Bias Basics" has a section with the numbers from 2004, which are indeed very similar.
Harper's March 18 Washington Times article: "Right underrepresented in press's diversity."
The political ideology question is #36 on page 55 of the PDF with the results for the survey conducted September 17 to December 3, 2007. For national broadcast journalists (97 polled), zero percent call themselves "very conservative" while 6 percent said they are "very liberal."
Overall, only 8 percent of those at national outlets attend church or synagogue weekly.
The political ideology results were summarized in "Section III" of the report released on March 17 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "Financial Woes Now Overshadow All Other Concerns for Journalists The Web: Alarming, Appealing and a Challenge to Journalistic Values." The relevant portion:
Journalists' Ideology
As was the case in 2004, majorities of the national and local journalists surveyed describe themselves as political moderates; 53% of national journalists and 58% of local journalists say they are moderates. About a third of national journalists (32%), and 23% of local journalists, describe themselves as liberals. Relatively small minorities of national and local journalists call themselves conservatives (8% national, 14% local).
Internet journalists as a group tend to be more liberal than either national or local journalists. Fewer than half (46%) call themselves moderates, while 39% are self-described liberals and just 9% are conservatives.
Among the population as a whole, 36% call themselves conservatives -- more than triple the percentage of national and internet journalists, and more than double the percentage of local journalists. About four-in-ten (39%) characterize their political views as moderate, while 19% are self-described liberals, based on surveys conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
--Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
So since I can Google articles and experts that support me , and you can do the same we have what is called a stalemate you moron.
So now you said you could easily defeat my argument which you can't do either easily or at all for that matter.
I guess that makes you the stupid one and a liar. Oh what a tangled web. LOL!
These are facts that are as current as 2007 and I alre4ady listed the study that was conducted every ten years since the sixties. They all support me not you.
You just go right ahead believing that the media is not Liberally biased despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Many others in this thread have posted the truth about Islam and your trying to equate and denigrate Christianity to Islam just makes you look like a total ignorant fool.
Your arguments are Vacuous and inane.
Jesus H. Christ
posted 5/28/08 @ 10:49 PM MST
As God is my Father, you have missed the spiritual message in your eagerness to hate. Where in the edited writings about me did I ever advocate a holy war on others? Did you never learn "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"? What about "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you"? Were they as seed that fell unto rocks?
Whatever point you are trying to make is lost in your gratuitous, unwarranted, and unfounded insulting assessment of people -- be they posters or be they of another faith. And you deem yourself worthy to be called one of my Christian followers? Thou hypocrite!
Matt 5:21-22
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, ... whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil," such as the commandments against stealing and lying, yet ones that you frequently break. You steal by infringing upon the copyright of others in posting their (inappropriate) writings here; targeted excerpts with attributes to the author and the source is protected by fair-use and more importantly would more effectively bolster whatever misguided argument you attempt to utter. You lie by misquoting and rewriting the words of others you disagree with.
Registered Independent wrote words most fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."
Whatever point you are trying to make is lost in your gratuitous, unwarranted, and unfounded insulting assessment of people -- be they posters or be they of another faith. And you deem yourself worthy to be called one of my Christian followers? Thou hypocrite!
Matt 5:21-22
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, ... whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil," such as the commandments against stealing and lying, yet ones that you frequently break. You steal by infringing upon the copyright of others in posting their (inappropriate) writings here; targeted excerpts with attributes to the author and the source is protected by fair-use and more importantly would more effectively bolster whatever misguided argument you attempt to utter. You lie by misquoting and rewriting the words of others you disagree with.
Registered Independent wrote words most fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
posted 5/29/08 @ 6:59 AM MST
Originally posted byQ: Why doesn't this Charlie Manson mimic demonstrate some intellectual honesty and discuss what it believes, instead of blaspheming my Savior with this obscene sockpuppet routine?Jesus H. Christ
idiotarian atheist drooled: "As God is my Father, you have missed the spiritual message in your eagerness to hate."
A: Because as a transparently atheistic Leftist, it has no moral standing to level charges of "hypocrisy" at anyone. Its "rational" atheistic Marxism has slaughtered 100s of millions of innocents (and counting).
The evidence clearly demonstrates that the 20th century's bloodiest mass murderers-- Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Honneker, Mussolini, Caeucescu, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi, il Sung, Mugabe, Mengistu, Castro, Che, PFLP, PKK, FMLN, FARC, IRA, ETA, Red Army faction, Shining Path, Rachel Carson, etc., ad nauseum-- were all inspired by Leftist atheistic Marxism.
Islamo-fascists are merely playing catch-up with their Unholy Leftist Allies. Yet they actually expect faithful believers (Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.) to submit to murder and walk into their fascist ovens without a fight? Never again.
100s of millions of corpses don't lie. Show some intellectual honesty and own it, atheist.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." [Matthew 7:15]
The Illusion of Pacifism
posted 5/29/08 @ 7:58 AM MST
Originally posted byNaturally, that's a false dichotomy. Christians don't advocate holy war upon Muslims. Even the Crusades were merely a (failed) 300 years defensive response to a millineum of ongoing Muslim conquests in the Levant, North Africa, Asia Minor, Spain, etc., ad nauseum.Jesus H. Christ
idiotarian sockpuppet muttered: "Where in the edited writings about me did I ever advocate a holy war on others?"
What the idiotarian suggests is a suicidal Ghandi-inspired pacifism in the face of naked aggression from Islamo-fascists.
This "What Would Jesus Do?" rhetoric is generally a search for ways to make Jesus say the things pacifists think he ought to have said if he'd possessed their wisdom. The historical reality is that Jesus lived in a society under military occupation by a foreign empire, and one swarming with insurgent groups at that. If Jesus had ever meant to condemn imperialism or endorse "liberation theology" or "wars of national liberation," he had one of the most perfect settings in all history to do so. Not only did he not do so, but Roman soldiers are just about the only group in the New Testament who are given complimentary treatment. When a group of soldiers came to John the Baptist asking what they needed to do to be saved, he told them not to abuse their power. He didn't even remotely suggest they should quit the army.
It gets worse. Jesus was put to death on trumped up charges. What a perfect opportunity to condemn capital punishment. Yet, while he and two criminals were dying, one of the criminals chided the other one, saying that they were only getting what they deserved. What a perfect place to say that nobody deserves to die at the hands of the state, that the criminals are really victims of unequal wealth, lack of empowerment, and poor self esteem. Jesus, apparently failing completely to understand what was at stake, said nothing. And his followers, while they condemned the execution of Jesus and some of his followers, always did so on the sophistic grounds that they were innocent and morally in the right. Not once did they challenge the right of the state to take the life of genuine criminals.
Attempts to equate Christianity and pacifism simply don't stand scrutiny. Christianity does not teach that life is sacred. Jesus and his followers ate animal products. Christianity doesn't even teach that human life is sacred. Christ told his followers not to fear those who merely destroyed the body, and said that he who loved his life would lose it.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
posted 6/18/08 @ 3:49 PM MST
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
Caution, this person referring to himself as "Jesus H. Christ" is a September 11th Conspiracy Theory nutcase and troll named Maxwell Bridges.
Maxwell firmly believes that forces within our own government blew up the twin towers and the pentagon. He is absolutely compulsive about forcing that idea upon the world. He also believes that he can "channel" Jesus.
[QUOTE
id="a84a0433-8f44-4f40-9310-12bf1a895eba"]As God is my Father, you have missed the spiritual message in your eagerness to hate. Where in the edited writings about me did I ever advocate a holy war on others? Did you never learn "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"? What about "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you"? Were they as seed that fell unto rocks?
Whatever point you are trying to make is lost in your gratuitous, unwarranted, and unfounded insulting assessment of people -- be they posters or be they of another faith. And you deem yourself worthy to be called one of my Christian followers? Thou hypocrite!
Matt 5:21-22
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, ... whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil," such as the commandments against stealing and lying, yet ones that you frequently break. You steal by infringing upon the copyright of others in posting their (inappropriate) writings here; targeted excerpts with attributes to the author and the source is protected by fair-use and more importantly would more effectively bolster whatever misguided argument you attempt to utter. You lie by misquoting and rewriting the words of others you disagree with.
Registered Independent wrote words most fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."[/QUOTE]
Caution, this person referring to himself as "Jesus H. Christ" is a September 11th Conspiracy Theory nutcase and troll named Maxwell Bridges.
Maxwell firmly believes that forces within our own government blew up the twin towers and the pentagon. He is absolutely compulsive about forcing that idea upon the world. He also believes that he can "channel" Jesus.
[QUOTE
id="a84a0433-8f44-4f40-9310-12bf1a895eba"]As God is my Father, you have missed the spiritual message in your eagerness to hate. Where in the edited writings about me did I ever advocate a holy war on others? Did you never learn "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"? What about "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you"? Were they as seed that fell unto rocks?
Whatever point you are trying to make is lost in your gratuitous, unwarranted, and unfounded insulting assessment of people -- be they posters or be they of another faith. And you deem yourself worthy to be called one of my Christian followers? Thou hypocrite!
Matt 5:21-22
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, ... whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil," such as the commandments against stealing and lying, yet ones that you frequently break. You steal by infringing upon the copyright of others in posting their (inappropriate) writings here; targeted excerpts with attributes to the author and the source is protected by fair-use and more importantly would more effectively bolster whatever misguided argument you attempt to utter. You lie by misquoting and rewriting the words of others you disagree with.
Registered Independent wrote words most fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."[/QUOTE]
Jesus H. Christ
posted 5/29/08 @ 7:45 AM MST
Jesus H. Christ
Demonstrate to everyone how wrong you are.
Call me Charlie Manson? "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
You talk of 20th century's bloodiest mass murders, conveniently leaving out America's bloody hands. Did you forget about the only nuclear bombs dropped on civilian populations? And what about the 21st century's bloodiest mass murders? Would that not be the exact opposite of "leftist"? Would that not be neo-con-men Bush and Cheney? Or have you forgotten the body count in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Islamo-fascists? What a silly coined term that has no basis in reality.
Yes indeed, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." [Matthew 7:15]
Your hate is transparent in the names you call and in the smears you make. How dare you call Christ your savior! You have done nothing to prove this except the exact opposite of what a true Christian would do.
And, Craig Hawley, please heed the words of your right-wing-(wo)man, Registered Independent, who wrote words still most fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."
Demonstrate to everyone how wrong you are.
Call me Charlie Manson? "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
You talk of 20th century's bloodiest mass murders, conveniently leaving out America's bloody hands. Did you forget about the only nuclear bombs dropped on civilian populations? And what about the 21st century's bloodiest mass murders? Would that not be the exact opposite of "leftist"? Would that not be neo-con-men Bush and Cheney? Or have you forgotten the body count in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Islamo-fascists? What a silly coined term that has no basis in reality.
Yes indeed, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." [Matthew 7:15]
Your hate is transparent in the names you call and in the smears you make. How dare you call Christ your savior! You have done nothing to prove this except the exact opposite of what a true Christian would do.
And, Craig Hawley, please heed the words of your right-wing-(wo)man, Registered Independent, who wrote words still most fitting for you:
"Yet another uninformed, poorly-read person, posing as knowledgeable... As if verbosity were an interchangeable substitute for knowledge."
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
posted 5/29/08 @ 8:08 AM MST
Originally posted bySo, President Truman is now a mass murderer? Clearly you've passed Saturn and entered orbit around Uranus.Jesus H. Christ
idiotarian sockpuppet drooled: "You talk of 20th century's bloodiest mass murders, conveniently leaving out America's bloody hands. Did you forget about the only nuclear bombs dropped on civilian populations?"
I'm sorry, but not since Princeton Professor Peter Singer explained that folks should give as good as they get from dogs who hump their legs, have I been so exasperated with the way wacademics like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and (now) their sockpuppet toadies think they should use their head for a colonoscopy and then crab-walk across the University stage expecting all the world to think their new hats make them look smart.
And, as with Professor Singer's efforts to get pet stores to carry Viagra, I have a very hard time taking these pro-terrorist Leftists seriously anymore; because I'm not sure taking them seriously helps anybody.
So, let's all go splash some water on our faces, wash off the giggles from this latest sockpuppet act, and return to battling our regularly scheduled terrorist enemies-- who are still planning their next attack.
Take your meds and stop drooling on your mom's keyboard, sockpuppet.
- Displaying 1 - 50 of 403
- Next 50 Comments
MSA Wahabbi-lobby dossier
posted 5/09/08 @ 7:30 AM MST
Q: Have Sarah's handlers in the Wahabbist MSA approved the content of this propanganda, masquerading as opinion?
A: The prerogative to issue fatwas regarding hijab is granted only to Sarah's dead false prophet, or authoritative representatives of her mythical Ummah. Which one is this slave of Allah invoking? Or is she free to interpret Islam herself?